Christopher W. Morgan, “Inclusivisms and Exclusivisms,” in Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism 
(ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson; Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 18, 26, 36:
The Traditional Classification
- Exclusivism: Jesus is the only Savior of the world, and one must believe God’s special revelation culminating in the gospel of Christ to be saved.
- Inclusivism: Jesus is the only Savior of the world, but one does not have to believe the gospel to be saved.
- Pluralism: All paths are valid and lead to God.
__________________________________________
Figure 1. What about those who have never heard the gospel?
. . .
So, then, what are the main responses to the question “Is there any basis for hope that those who do not hear of Christ in this life will be saved?” Although, when answering this question most theologians assume the traditional threefold framework: exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism, we uncovered nine distinct responses. . . .
Here is a summary of the nine major responses to the question:
- Church exclusivism: No, outside the church there is no salvation.
- Gospel exclusivism: No, they must hear the gospel and trust Christ to be saved.
- Special revelation exclusivism: No, they must hear the gospel and trust Christ to be saved, unless God chooses to send them special revelation in an extraordinary way—by a dream, vision, miracle, or angelic message.
- Agnosticism: We cannot know.
- General revelation inclusivism: Yes, they can respond to God in saving faith through seeing him in general revelation.
- World religions inclusivism: Yes, they can respond to God through general revelation or their religion.
- Postmortem evangelism: Yes, they will have an opportunity to trust Christ after death.
- Universalism: Yes, everyone will ultimately be saved.
- Pluralism: Yes, many will experience “salvation” as they understand it because they embrace their version of the real.
Andy,
Not sure if you are trying to generate discussion from this, but was wondering where you fell.
I would probably fall into category 2 assuming that moving forward they would need to be discipled in a church context in order to be obedient to the Word of God, which they should desire to obey once converted.
From here the discussion could branch into a hundred different secondary effects, but simply put, number two seems the most biblical answer to me.
I posted this excerpt for at least two reasons:
1. to show that answers to this common question are diverse.
2. to encourage people to read this fine book.
While I’m more comfortable with #2 in Morgan’s list (e.g., based on my experience), I can’t rule out #3.
Is that special revelation about Jesus and the Gospel and/or is it a means by which God draws them and then God sends a missionary/ evangelist their way?
That issue (i.e., #3 in Morgan’s list) is complex and beyond my expertise (and I haven’t studied the issue much at all). If you’d like to pursue this more, perhaps start with the above book and then branch out from there.
I’m saying merely that I’m not aware of a compelling reason that God can’t choose to reveal himself through other means to someone in a particular circumstance if he chooses to (and, of course, the message of that revelation wouldn’t contradict the Bible).
Yes, I will plan on getting it. Thanks Andy!
I would also hold to a hybrid of #2 and #3. Both Romans 10 and Acts 9 are instructive in this case.
Rom. 10:14 asks: “How are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”
This verse is given to emphasize the responsibility of believers to evangelize. Human evangelism is God’s normal and commanded means of introducing the gospel to the unreached. However, just as God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility, neither does human responsibility limit God’s sovereignty. If God chooses to make himself the initial messenger (through a dream or vision), he has every right to do so.
In fact, there are many modern day anecdotes indicating that this indeed takes place (particularly in predominantly Muslim countries). J. Dudley Woodberry, after collecting over 650 testimonies from Muslims who have received Christ, claims that a third of these conversion accounts mentioned dreams as a factor. These Muslims were usually directed to listen to the next white man who came to their village (apparently, a missionary), who would give them the truth (Guthrie, Missions in the Third Millennium, p. 220).
For John Piper, the story of Cornelius in Acts 9 is analogous: “Cornelius represents a kind of unsaved person among an unreached people group who is seeking God in an extraordinary way. Peter is saying that God accepts this search as genuine . . . and works wonders to bring that person the gospel of Jesus Christ the way he did through the visions of both Peter on the housetop and Cornelius in the hour of prayer” (Let the Nations Be Glad, p. 138).
However, this position does not undermine the responsibility of believers to “go into all the world and proclaim the gospel” (Mark 16:15). Robert Blincoe, missionary to Iraq, states: “We can talk about miracles . . . but there is no substitute for the apostolic method that Christ directed. That is, a person with his voice should tell the gospel message. In the end, people who have had dreams and visions still need a human being” (Guthrie, Missions in the Third Millennium, p. 220).
I wrote a paper on this topic a couple years ago. If anyone is interested I’d be happy to email you a copy. Just contact me at mikemoses AT harvestdetroitwest.org.
Thanks, Mike! Good work.